Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 29 May 2012 23:00:32 +0200, Kulin <remailer@reece.net.au> a écrit:
> I don't agree. The GPL is not about software licensing. It's about  
> socialist

Please, stop with politic here. Further more, it makes many different  
senses depending on the country you live in, and this Usenet is  
international, not just an United‑State Usenet (french user talking here).

> Freedom is a word that is well-defined. Stallman is a damn liar for  
> twisting the definition completely out of reality

Talking about twisting, I wonder if there is even an issue to twist  
license issues when the effective issue is indeed about twisting with the  
reality (as you named it), I mean disconnection between the real society  
and a software world which look like to live in a vacuum (is that the  
correct English expression for the french « vivre dans une bulle »?).

I feel many people run around the topic, but miss the real topic. Face it:  
when do complains about GPL comes? Answer: when it disallow commercial  
activities, and further more, states it's bad. Yes, I know officially GPL  
does not disallow it, but every one know it disallow it in practice, and  
comes with a culture which say so. If the GPL also came with something to  
solve that paradox, there would be less complains, but it don't, indeed.

That's what I meant some days ago, and today as well, when I said the real  
issue is culture. Here indeed, instead of solving a trouble, the GPL make  
it worst. But that's not the GPL who created it. By the way, the license  
is not what matters to people, its the price. Indeed, as the GPL said  
“everything must allow redistribution at no charge”, it get a lot of  
echoes and propagated with the help of that. But the same is here with  
BSD. Release what you want under BSD license or *what ever license you  
want*, this issue will still be the same, with people thinking things are  
as much easily made as copied. In short, the GPL enforced that belief, but  
did not originate that belief, it has a responsibility in the situation,  
but is not the cause.

My assumption here is that people don't mind so much to provide their  
source (potentially at extra cost) but minds about giving up everything  
for free (as in free as in beer), while they may be other reasons where  
one may wish to not release sources, to avoid modified versions to be  
distributed or some others, but these are not the most common case.

Why not switch to “how to setup a commercial plan for XYZ application”  
instead of going on with this topic which, I know it, will not give better  
than what it already gave?

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University